From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 16:12:29 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> ...
>
>First of all, let's change the rules: the burden of proof is on those
>who wish to support patents, not those who wish to remove them, because
>freedom should always be the default. Patents reduce freedom.
>
A patent is a state created monopoly, and therefore needs to be
approached with extreme care.
>Second, even as someone who opposes the idea, I don't deny for a moment
>that they encourage innovation. Indeed, that's one reason I oppose them:
>
You don't? That's interesting. I do consider that in a restricted
subset of areas patents encourage innovation. One can define this area
as the area that requires a large initial up-front investment of
resources. In that area, because of it's restriction, the pool of
potential inventors is small, and patents serve to increase the
innovation by granting potentially large rewards to those who risk their
investments. But in most areas patents discourage innovation, but
granting wide monopoly status to the entity to first be granted a
patent, which that individual can use to forbid others from exploring
the area. So if many would be explorers, then the net effect of patents
is to decrease innovation.
>they encourage innovation /for its own sake/ over other things like
>craftsmanship, gradual refinement and evolution, collaborative
>development, competition, and other things I think are more important
>than mere innovation. If people invent novel things, that's fine, but
>I also want people to make not-so-novel things, interesting combinations,
>refinements, and customizations of existing things. I want more people
>competing to find cheaper ways to produce things. I want people to find
>and exploit more markets for things than the inventor ever imagined.
>
Fine craftsmanship certainly has it's points. And patents do discourage
that because a monopoly doesn't have much incentive to engage in such
"frivolity".
>The idea that inventors inherently deserve reward is the communist
>fallacy of the labor theory of value: the totally discredited idea that
>
No. Inventors do deserve reward for their efforts. But not unlimited
reward, and in most areas of endeavor not a monopoly. Of course, this
is conditional upon a meaning for the word "deserve". I tend to think
of it as meaning something like "it is in society's best interest to
reward this individual to achieve that worthy goal", in this case that
would translate into "Society benefits by encouraging inventors to
expend their efforts in invention rather than in, say, ditch-digging."
This can be argued in several ways, but communism doesn't figure into
it, unless you consider all government communist. (I can see a point of
view from which that is reasonable, but when I look at it that way, then
communism doesn't seem so bad. Terms need definitions!)
>the value of a thing is inherent in its creation. That's simply not
>true, and policies based on that idea are doomed to failure, as all
>socialist systems have been. Value is created by /demand/, and so what
>
Not necessarily. Demand by whom? If the people who want, or perhaps
need, the item can't pay for it that doesn't make it worthless.
Consider, e.g, a smallpox vaccine. Nearly no individual wants it, but
having one is vital to national security. Or an AIDS vaccine. Those
who desperately need it can't afford to buy it. Does that make it
valuless? Not in my eyes. So I tend to consider the value of something
it's contribution to the common wealth. And this can be negative as
well as positive. But I also acknowledge that the "value at a point" of
something can be quite different than it's global average value. And if
you get a blood transfusion from someone who is suspected of having
AIDS, then the value of a vaccine to you would suddenly increase
dramatically. Value isn't the same as cost or price. Those are merely
attempts to measure value.
>should be rewarded is the ability to fulfill demand, whether by
>innovation or other means. Without patents, innovation will still be
>rewarded /when it fulfills a demand/, but not otherwise, which is how
>it should be.
>
Demand... that's the kind of argument that causes people to consider
heroin and tobacco valuable, when by my measure they have a negative value.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 16:17:55 MST